Discussant's response to symbolism and communication in the auditor's report;

Page 1

Discussant's Response to
Symbolism and Communication in the Auditor's Report
Charles W. Lamden
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
Professor Seidler's analysis of symbolism as a major factor in the auditor's report is most perceptive. Intuitively, I have felt for some time that the standard wording of the audit report should be retained. However, the arguments that the auditor's report should be expanded or contracted, clarified, simplified, or what­ever
it was felt was necessary to improve communication also sounded reasonable. The concept of the audit report as a symbol resolves my dilemma.
Changes in the Wording of the Auditor's Report to Improve the Symbol
It is a fact that the standard wording of the auditor's report has been adopted, utilized and well recognized. Except for those trained in accounting, who under­stand
the overall scope of the examination and the background and meaning of the terms "auditing standards," "accounting principles," and "opinion," the only way to understand the general use and acceptance of the audit report is as a symbol.
Upon reflection, as Professor Seidler points out, even those who have the back­ground
and knowledge to understand the technical meaning of the words do not concern themselves with the standard words, but rather look only for the excep­tions.
The standard wording is a symbol also for the technicians.
It becomes quite clear, then, that changing a few words or adding explanatory comments in the standard audit report are not the answer for improving com­munication
in the auditor's report.
The communication problem results from the fact that the same symbol may carry different messages to different viewers. For example, certain users of the audit report interpret it as a guarantee rather than an expression of opinion as to overall fairness of the presentation of the financial statements. Some may argue that an explicit statement such as "This is not a guarantee as to the value of the assets included in the financial statements" would improve the communication. But even this explanatory comment could convey different messages to different readers. Knowledgeable readers would say "Of course the auditor is not a guarantor." But others could interpret such a comment as an adverse statement.
Nor would listing the auditing standards or the detailed procedures followed in the audit necessarily increase the effective communication for most users. As indicated by the studies to which Professor Seidler referred, ". . . most respondents did not want additional information or explanation about the auditor's report." Moreover, the listings would tend to become repetitious, and users looking for a symbol of credibility would be concerned only with any exceptions. This has
45